In New Jersey, the yeas were 38; _nays not given_. (Elliot, Vol. 1, p. 321.) In Pennsylvania, the yeas were 46; _the nays not given_. (Elliot, Vol. 1, p. 320.) In Delaware, the yeas were 30; _nays not given_. (Elliot, Vol. 1, p. 319.) In Maryland, the vote was 57 yeas; _nays not given_. (Elliot, Vol. 1, p. 325.) In North Carolina, neither the yeas nor nays are given. (Elliot, Vol. 1, p. 333.) In South Carolina, neither the yeas nor nays are given. (Elliot, Vol. 1, p. 325.) In Georgia, the yeas were 26; _nays not given_. (Elliot, Vol. 1, p. 324.) We can thus see by what meagre votes the constitution was adopted. We can also see that, but for the prospect that important amendments would be made, specially for securing the natural rights of the people, the constitution would have been spurned with contempt, as it deserved to be. And yet now, owing to the usurpations of lawmakers and courts, the original constitution--with the worst possible construction put upon it--has been carried into effect; and the amendments have been simply cast into the waste baskets. Marshall was thirty-six years old, when these amendments became a part of the constitution in 1791. Ten years after, in 1801, he became Chief Justice. It then became his sworn constitutional duty to scrutinize severely every act of congress, and to condemn, as unconstitutional, all that should violate any of these natural rights. Yet he appears never to have thought of the matter afterwards. Or, rather, this ninth amendment, the most important of all, seems to have been so utterly antagonistic to all his ideas of government, that he chose to ignore it altogether, and, as far as he could, to bury it out of sight. Instead of recognizing it as an absolute guaranty of all the natural rights of the people, he chose to assume--for it was all a mere assumption, a mere making a constitution out of his own head, to suit himself--that the people had all voluntarily "come into society," and had voluntarily "surrendered" to "society" all their natural rights, of every name and nature--trusting that they would be secured; and that now, "society," having thus got possession of all these natural rights of the people, had the "unquestionable right" to dispose of them, at the pleasure--or, as he would say, according to the "wisdom and discretion"--of a few contemptible, detestable, and irresponsible lawmakers, whom the constitution (thus amended) had forbidden to dispose of any one of them. If, now, Marshall did not see, in this amendment, any legal force or authority, what becomes of his reputation as a constitutional lawyer? If he did see this force and authority, but chose to trample them under his feet, he was a perjured tyrant and traitor.